S. Tzu was correct. This has been the best give and take today.<vbg>
Most of the "regulars" have learned not to cross "briefs" with Carl.<g> I certainly would never dream of it. Once you give him access to the written word, he is death on the opposition.
As I am unfamiliar with your methodology and logic I have some questions.
1. In reply to Carl's assertion that Judge Payne did not make the file wrapper information a significant element of his analysis you said:
"If that is the case, and I have not read through all the documents in great detail, and thus why I have only spoke in generality, ***[discussion of embodiments, specifications, RMBS attorney shock omitted]*** I think it was because it is generally impermissible to limit a patent in this matter on the basis that it appears Judge Payne did so limit it."
I don't understand that last sentence. I assume you are saying that:
- RMBS lawyers were shocked.
- They were shocked because it's impermissible to limit a patent primarily based on the Court's view of preferred embodiments and specifications.
- The reason that it's shocking is because it "appeared" to RMBS counsel that Judge Payne used the impermissible form of analysis.
As you posted this after Bilow's response (#reply-15817638) to your suggestion of repeated dishonesty on his part, in which he sites relevant portions of the Court's own explicit statement of the limited use of preferred embodiments and specification language in arriving at its Markman Ruling; are you saying that RMBS counsel either (a) failed to read the Court's ruling; (b) did not understand the Court's ruling; or (c) believed the Court lied as to the analysis used to arrive at a conclusion?
Please suggest an alternative explanation for their "shock" being in any way related to a "belief" that the Judge incorrectly analyzed the evidence in his ruling. No need to retype the language as Carl did. If you could simply advise me of the "shocking" judicial statement to be found there I will be happy to go read and verify it for myself.
2. Much has been written concerning what the Court found and IFX argued regarding the inventive "multiplexed bus." I am wondering whether or not you know what RMBS asserted as the meaning of that phrase? If so I would be very grateful to hear you describe the RMBS interpretation.
I myself don't see how the Court could have accepted the suggested interpretation of RMBS without casting serious "doubt" on the "inventiveness" of the basic RDRAM patent itself. Certainly all would agree that the central element of "creativity" in the RDRAM patents is the "nature" of its chip to chip bus concept. My question results from an inability to understand how "multiplexed bus" could retain its distinctive character for patent purposes if the Judge had accepted the interpretation put forth by RMBS.
Then, I am just a Mom & Pop investor with no ability to count or type very fast, let alone understand electricity. The implications of RMBS, committing such an error of logic is "shocking" to me.<vbg> ...But then again, I was "shocked" by RMBS counsel taking the position, in a pre-trial conference call, that they didn't have a definition or meaning for some "claim language" in issue. But I am probably easily "shocked."<vbg>
I look forward to your reply. Please remember to speak slowly. I have to carefully absorb each word or it just doesn't get through the skull structure.<g>
0|0 |
